5 ms·

1. Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em. 2. Tell ‘em. 3. Tell ‘em what you told ‘em. There should be 2 or 3 key points that you reinforce multiple times. No m

1. Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em. 2. Tell ‘em. 3. Tell ‘em what you told ‘em. There should be 2 or 3 key points that you reinforce multiple times. No more. And my #1 tip: The more natural you want the presentation to sound, the more you need to practice it in advance. If you’re an experienced presenter you’ll know how and when to break these rules.

beryilma 2y ago
Absolutely not. Please don't do this. Treat your audience as smart people and just tell them. All that pseudo-psychology just doesn't work with presentations.
- blowski 2y ago
  Treat your audience as people with lots on their minds, distracted by their phones, and who are likely sitting in their 10th presentation so far this week. And be humble - your presentation is probably not as interesting as you think.
- Too 2y ago
  It's not pseudo-psychology, it's just common sense. Imagine a 1h presentation consisting of three topics. If the listeners don't know how many topics you are going to cover, by minute 42 they will start zoning out, instead of looking forward to the next topic that sounded more interesting. By the end of the presentation they may also have forgotten about the first topic if the last topic was very engaging, even if the first key point was equally important as the third. It doesn't have to be complicated, just a short agenda or table of contents in the beginning and a quick TLDR summary at the end. Of course you have to apply the technique with finesse, if you only have a short, single topic, it may be repetitive. For longer presentations with several key points it becomes more important.
IshKebab 2y ago
This is such bad advice because it leads to tedious contents pages that people read out twice. You shouldn't need to do more than tell people what problem you're trying to solve, and you definitely shouldn't need to tell people what you just told them. You just told them! If they don't know what you told them then you didn't do a very good job. Seriously no good presentation I've ever seen has followed this tedious format. Definitely agree about practice though. Makes a huge difference. Also record yourself with a phone. Closest feeling you can get to a real audience.
- pricechild 2y ago
  I don't think it is. It's a commonly taught technique to flight instructors and I personally think it does often work. Not saying it applies in all situations. I think it does depend on narrowly scoping the presentation.
- ajcp 2y ago
  > tell people what problem you're trying to solve That's literally step one in OPs advice. It's just a pat way of conveying the "introduction > argument > summary" format for presenting and it scales really well from 3 slides to x. 1. This problem I'm trying to solve (i.e. I'm going to tell you how I solved this problem - Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em) 2. This is how I solved the problem (Tell 'em) 3. This is the outcome (i.e. This is what the solved problem looks like - Tell 'em what you told 'em)
  - SilasX 2y ago
    >That's literally step one in OPs advice. No, it's your generous, retroactive re-writing of the OP's advice. If you genuinely don't understand that you communicated something that wasn't in the original, then your communication skills are not at the level that justifies the confidence with which you're posting.
    - jerbear4328 2y ago
      He was interpreting it generously, which is a pretty good way to keep discussions civil. The site guidelines say to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", and I think that has happened pretty well here.
      - SilasX 2y ago
        That ... doesn't apply when the topic at hand is the validity of oft-repeated conventional wisdom. In that case, the real anti-pattern to pretend that the conventional wisdom actually means a specific (sane) interpretation that lives only in one HN poster's head.[1] Which, coincidentally, is the very thing I was criticizing. It's really bizarre to see "be charitable in discussions" used to defend Orwellian reinterpretation of bad advice no one actually follows. [1] See sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing
flerchin 2y ago
1. Tell 'em.
hatthew 2y ago
If you practice too little, you'll screw up wording, miss important points, and sound nervous. If you practice too much, you'll sound robotic like you're reading a script word for word, which doesn't sound good unless you're an actor who's practiced reading scripts while still sounding natural. You have to find where the balance in the middle is, which depends on yourself, your content, and your audience.
- blowski 2y ago
  Strong disagree - you can’t practise too much. Looking robotic comes from being nervous that you’ll forget it, because you haven’t practised enough. Once you’ve delivered it 1000 times you’ll know it so well that it will appear more natural.
interludead 2y ago
Really straightforward structure

beryilma 2y ago

Absolutely not. Please don't do this. Treat your audience as smart people and just tell them. All that pseudo-psychology just doesn't work with presentations.

blowski 2y ago
Treat your audience as people with lots on their minds, distracted by their phones, and who are likely sitting in their 10th presentation so far this week. And be humble - your presentation is probably not as interesting as you think.
Too 2y ago
It's not pseudo-psychology, it's just common sense. Imagine a 1h presentation consisting of three topics. If the listeners don't know how many topics you are going to cover, by minute 42 they will start zoning out, instead of looking forward to the next topic that sounded more interesting. By the end of the presentation they may also have forgotten about the first topic if the last topic was very engaging, even if the first key point was equally important as the third. It doesn't have to be complicated, just a short agenda or table of contents in the beginning and a quick TLDR summary at the end. Of course you have to apply the technique with finesse, if you only have a short, single topic, it may be repetitive. For longer presentations with several key points it becomes more important.

IshKebab 2y ago

This is such bad advice because it leads to tedious contents pages that people read out twice. You shouldn't need to do more than tell people what problem you're trying to solve, and you definitely shouldn't need to tell people what you just told them. You just told them! If they don't know what you told them then you didn't do a very good job. Seriously no good presentation I've ever seen has followed this tedious format. Definitely agree about practice though. Makes a huge difference. Also record yourself with a phone. Closest feeling you can get to a real audience.

pricechild 2y ago
I don't think it is. It's a commonly taught technique to flight instructors and I personally think it does often work. Not saying it applies in all situations. I think it does depend on narrowly scoping the presentation.
ajcp 2y ago
> tell people what problem you're trying to solve That's literally step one in OPs advice. It's just a pat way of conveying the "introduction > argument > summary" format for presenting and it scales really well from 3 slides to x. 1. This problem I'm trying to solve (i.e. I'm going to tell you how I solved this problem - Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em) 2. This is how I solved the problem (Tell 'em) 3. This is the outcome (i.e. This is what the solved problem looks like - Tell 'em what you told 'em)
- SilasX 2y ago
  >That's literally step one in OPs advice. No, it's your generous, retroactive re-writing of the OP's advice. If you genuinely don't understand that you communicated something that wasn't in the original, then your communication skills are not at the level that justifies the confidence with which you're posting.
  - jerbear4328 2y ago
    He was interpreting it generously, which is a pretty good way to keep discussions civil. The site guidelines say to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", and I think that has happened pretty well here.
    - SilasX 2y ago
      That ... doesn't apply when the topic at hand is the validity of oft-repeated conventional wisdom. In that case, the real anti-pattern to pretend that the conventional wisdom actually means a specific (sane) interpretation that lives only in one HN poster's head.[1] Which, coincidentally, is the very thing I was criticizing. It's really bizarre to see "be charitable in discussions" used to defend Orwellian reinterpretation of bad advice no one actually follows. [1] See sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sanewashing

flerchin 2y ago

1. Tell 'em.

hatthew 2y ago

If you practice too little, you'll screw up wording, miss important points, and sound nervous. If you practice too much, you'll sound robotic like you're reading a script word for word, which doesn't sound good unless you're an actor who's practiced reading scripts while still sounding natural. You have to find where the balance in the middle is, which depends on yourself, your content, and your audience.

blowski 2y ago
Strong disagree - you can’t practise too much. Looking robotic comes from being nervous that you’ll forget it, because you haven’t practised enough. Once you’ve delivered it 1000 times you’ll know it so well that it will appear more natural.

interludead 2y ago

Really straightforward structure